Economist Paul Collier, CBE, co-director of the Centre for the Study of African Economies at Oxford
You mean you need a whole “centre” at one of the world’s most prestigious universities to study drugs and prostitution?
Diasporas accelerate migration. … These links cut the costs of migration and so fuel it. As a result, while diasporas are growing, migration is accelerating.
You say “migration,” I say “colonization.” Tomato, tomatoe.
Most immigrants prefer to retain their own culture and hence to cluster together. This reduces the speed at which diasporas are absorbed into the general population. The slower the rate at which they are absorbed, the lower the rate of immigration that is compatible with stable diasporas and migration. By design, absorption is slower with multicultural policies than with assimilative policies.
That’s sort of another way of the underrated under-appreciated point that Sam Francis made often, that old time immigration was letting compatible white people in and various socio-cultural mechanisms feted by the people already here accelerated their assimilation. New time immigration is letting everyone but white people in and declaring those old time socio-cultural mechanisms that accelerated assimilation to be illegal civil rights violations.
Because migration is costly, migrants are not among the poorest people in their home countries.
These “poor countries” (third world hovels) are the kind of places where anyone who had any kind of get up and go got up and went, if they had some place to go. Or as Puggg’s father says about East St. Louis, East St. Louis is full of the kind of people too dumb and lazy to leave East St. Louis. What it means is that as low of an opinion as we have of, say, the Somalians that come to the United States, consider that Somalians in Somalia are even worse.
In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial.
I highly disagree.
To wit: North Dakota.
In oil boom towns, because of the scarcity of labor, (hint: North Dakota’s winters), the big box marts and fast feeders can’t get anyone to work for under $15 an hour. If America maintained its 1924 immigration policy in terms of both origin countries and numbers, the effective minimum wage for such “dead end” jobs in Southern California would be even higher today.
The social effects of immigration outweigh the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy. These effects come from diversity. Diversity increases variety and this widening of choices and horizons is a social gain.
Our diversity is our strength, because…(insert a definition of diversity here). What, no lame canard of restaurants?
Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and generosity.
Enjoy bowling alone.
Both public goods and welfare systems benefit the indigenous poor, which means they are the group most at risk of loss.
Our indigenous poor (whites) just aren’t cool.
The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. … It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis.
As if the racio-ethnic collective right to very large spaces and the rights of individuals therein to small spaces are different and exist at the bane of each other. In reality, they are the same thing, two sides of the same coin, and are co-dependent institutions. Ethnostates with requisite immigration policies are more likely to have stable legal systems that respect the individual right to private property, and individuals who have private property are more likely to be personally vested in immigration control and immigration patriotism. Who is more likely to vote for immigration patriots and give money to Numbers USA? A ranch owner in southern Arizona or someone who rents an apartment in Tucson? Exactly.
Migration is not an inevitable consequence of globalisation. The vast expansion in trade and capital flows among developed countries has coincided with a decline in migration between them.
First off, I disagree. Free trade, open borders for immigration and global governance all go together. If you adopt one, there will inevitably be pressure on your body politic to adopt the other two, and if you repudiate one, likewise. Second, notice the sleight of hand the author engages in here — He states that “the vast expansion in trade and capital flows among DEVELOPED countries has coincided with a decline in migration BETWEEN them.” Duh, of course, hardly any Englishman wants to move to France and vice-versa. But it doesn’t mean that “migration” from the DEVELOPING (third, non-white) world and the DEVELOPED (first, white) world decreases, in fact, it increases. “The vast expansion in trade and capital flows” among first world countries that generally makes them and the people therein better off means that more Kenyans want to “migrate” to England and more Senegalese want to “migrate” to France.